People doing what they want

[Timosity]

As far as speeding goes, around where I live a couple of years ago, they change the speed limit from 60 km/h to 50 km/h, this is in residential areas that aren't main roads.

The reason behind was the difference of stopping distances ie save lives of kids running onto the road to get a ball etc.

outside schools the limit is 40 km/h during school hours.


The ideas of reducing the speed are justified but what happens when you have these laws for a few years people then say.

Well look at the stopping distance if you reduce it another 10 km/h.

if it kept going that way, it would eventually be quicker to walk around.

people just need to think more when they are driving, that is the main problem, it should just be obvious to drive a bit slower when there are many children on the side of the road coming out of a school.

or in a residential area when anyone could just run out from behind a car etc.

When it's pissing down with rain, or foggy, drive a bit slower, it's just common sense.

If you've had a few beers, get a taxi, or walk, or just stay and drink some more.

These laws are in place for safety mainly but it's usually young men between 17 - 30 that screw it up for everyone, everyone thinks they're the best driver, but they're all wrong, cause it's me.

[TerranRich]

This whole argument about punishment correlates with spanking a child. Will spanking the child teach him/her a lesson? Or will it only make things worse?

The same goes with crimes. I agree with Annie in that only crimes that hurtt others should warrant temporary separation from society, even something that would not harm the convicted. Something like smokig marijuana here in the U.S. is a ridiculous thing to punish for...which is why the punishment for such an offense is being lowered (or it already has been lowered) to something like a fine and a slap on the wrist.

Futhermore, the death penalty is completely unnecessary. I don't think I'll bore anyone with the reasons why, as they are proabbly evident. If not, I'll be happy to explain.

[Renal Shutdown]

Right, time for Iqu to stick his oar in, as this is something Iqu feels very strongly about (and there aren't many things).

Most of you will disagree with my opinions, I understand that, I want you to understand these are my genuine feelings on the subject.  Not some random post that's trying to be argumentative or arrogant.  With that disclaimer in place, I shall begin...

Prisons and the whole prison system we have is wrong.  I whole-heartedly agree with punishment, but the prisons we have in the so called "civilised" world are inadequate forms of punishment.

My friend was homeless over Christmas, he was cold and hungry and had no where to go.  He decided to smash a bank window, and then report it to the police.  His result was spending a night in a warm cell and getting free food.

This in itself, isn't to bad.  But it led to him vandalising other things, and ended up with him being sent to prison for three months.  He came out healthier, as he'd been eating properly for a change... but he was still on drugs, which were easier to get on the inside, and now had no fear of punishment.  Now he can break the law and he knows he can have a place to stay.  Where's the deterrent in that?

The prison system according to Iqu is:
1. Your cell in 3ft x 3ft x 6ft.
2. There are no windows.
3. There is a shower head above you.
4. There is a drain below you.
5. There is a hole in the door which can be opened to pass in food.
6. The food consists of one cup of brown rice, per day.
7. You are naked.
8. There is no toilet (see no. 3 and 4)
9. No visitors, except lawyer.
10. There amount of time you spend inside depends on the crime you commit.

That's it.  Much like Iraq under Saddam's control, yes.  However, Saddam was imprisoning innocent people.

I admit, some people may be innocent, that's inevitable.  If the wrong person is imprisoned they will receive a cash settlement, based on the amount of time spent in the cell.  This will be payed for by the money the prison system saves compared with the current system.

Death penalty.  Out-lawed.  If someone has commited a crime worthy of the death penalty, then surely they've commited a crime worthy of suffering for?  Supposing someone raped and killed your children.  Would you want them to (a) Die? or (b) Suffer for the rest of their life?  I know which I'd pick.

Yea, revenge.  But isn't that what most people want in a punishment?  Someone who's being raped doesn't want the guy to be "rehabilitated", and the let go a few years later.  If that happens, they're terrified.  Same with someone who's lost a loved one, they don't want the person to walk around free.

Rehabilitation.  This just doesn't work.  Most criminals arent rehabilitated, they just take some time off while they're inside.  I'm not saying that they *can't* be rehab'ed.  Some of them genuinely change.  What I'm saying is; "You can't force them to change, only help them if *they want* to change".

Morals.  Talking about morals is a joke.  You see, you may have a really good set of morals, but that doesn't mean the world shares it.  In truth, I don't share the same set of morals as my parents, according to my dad; Racism is ok, drugs are not.  I'm the opposite.  So if two people that closely linked can differ, think what a paedophile's morals are and compare them to your own.

That's why we have the moral majority, you say.  Well yea, but the moral majority is usually based on religion or politics, not on social ethics, not on what is right and wrong.

The only way round this problem is to draw up a brand new set of laws, which is voted on by everyone, any colour and any sex.  This new set of laws should say two things:

1. Description of the crime.
2. Penalty for committing it.

A simple, long list of crimes with the amount of time spent in prison, and if need be, the amount of monetary reparations paid to the victim(s).

With this in place, as well as prison-the-Iqu-way, I can only see the crime rate going down, as people will be genuinely scared of the punishment.  At the moment, getting caught for something doesn't scare me or the people I know, and it's only my personal morals stopping my from breaking the law very often.

Thankfully, I haven't committed anything serious, yet... but they way things are, I wouldn't rule it out.

Hugs
Iqu

Oh, yea.  Suicide/drugs would be legal.  Suicide only you die.  Drugs:  You would have to go to a doctor and pharmacist, and request them.

[Soft, Gooey, Delicious.]

Iqu, you're a sad, sad man. Revenge is for children.

[Renal Shutdown]

Iqu, you're a sad, sad man. Revenge is for children.

Sure, revenge is somewhat childish.  If someone punches you in the face, do you thank them for it? or punch them back?  If someone raped your mother or your sister, would you pat them on the back?  No, you want them to suffer, too.

[Soft, Gooey, Delicious.]

Sure, revenge is somewhat childish.  If someone punches you in the face, do you thank them for it? or punch them back?  If someone raped your mother or your sister, would you pat them on the back?  No, you want them to suffer, too.

Defending yourself has nothing to do with revenge.

If someone raped someone I knew, I wouldn't want them to suffer. I'd want them to A) Stop doing it and B) Do their upmost to reverse the damage they've already done. Yes, they should be made to feel the shame they have inflicted on their victims, but only so they never do it again. Deep down, I don't want anyone to suffer. Revenge is an uncivilised, barbaric notion that belongs in the past.

[Renal Shutdown]

Um, I didn't "defending yourself".  Besides, hitting back is not a defence, it's retaliation.  Blocking and running is defending yourself.

You'd want this rapist to "stop doing it".  How d'you suggest that happen?  A stern talking to is just not going to cut it.

"Do their upmost to reverse the damage they've already done".  The only way to do this is to go back in time, and stop it from happening.  This can't be done.  No amount of apologising will fix the emotional scars left on the victim.

Ergo, punishment.  Knowing that the rapist is in prison for the crime is some comfort to them.  However, most are living in fear of the day they get out.  What guarantees are they given that they work rape again? None.  That's what's wrong with the prison system, in the western world.

Not everyone can be happy, peaceful people.  It takes something that's uncivilised and barbaric to scare the bad element away from crime.  If I could click my fingers and make the world a better place I would, but the criminals would still be here, and it wouldn't take long to bring it back to the mess we currently have.

[Soft, Gooey, Delicious.]

Um, I didn't "defending yourself".  Besides, hitting back is not a defence, it's retaliation.  Blocking and running is defending yourself.

That's overly simplistic and you know it. Sometimes you can't run. Hitting someone so they can't hit you anymore is defence. Retaliation is coming back an hour later with a gang.

You'd want this rapist to "stop doing it".  How d'you suggest that happen?  A stern talking to is just not going to cut it.

And you think "punishment" is the only way to do it? How about surveilance bracelets or failing that, a humane removal from society where the person can be taught why what they did was wrong.

"Do their upmost to reverse the damage they've already done".  The only way to do this is to go back in time, and stop it from happening.  This can't be done.  No amount of apologising will fix the emotional scars left on the victim.

You do understand what upmost means, don't you? It means doing their best to provide clean up the mess they've created. It doesn't mean they have to fix it all, just as much as they can. You're trying to twist what I said into something else.

Ergo, punishment.  Knowing that the rapist is in prison for the crime is some comfort to them.  However, most are living in fear of the day they get out.  What guarantees are they given that they work rape again? None.  That's what's wrong with the prison system, in the western world.

And what precisely does punishment do to stop reoffenders? You're arguing against your own position. On one hand you say people should be punished, on the the other you admit that punishment doesn't stop people reoffending. Do you know the best way to stop the victim fearing the day someone gets out? It's to rehabilitate the person so they won't do it again.

Not everyone can be happy, peaceful people.  It takes something that's uncivilised and barbaric to scare the bad element away from crime.

No it doesn't. Criminals are punished now and they still commit crimes. You don't have to treat people like sub-humans to stop crime, you need better policing.

Your entire argument rests on the (hidden) premise that the only way to stop someone doing something socially destructive is to punish them. You don't even attempt to show this is the case. Your argument begs the question. The only way it can be right -- as you've layed it out -- is if you assume it's correct to start with.

[Renal Shutdown]

Surveilance Bracelets.  These tell you where a person is.  They can still commit a crime, you just have the proof of where they were after the fact.

Humane removal from society where the person can be taught why what they did was wrong...  Could you explain this in more detail, please.

The upmost thing...  I was not trying to twist your words, and I apologise if it seemed that way.  It's just that rapists, killers and paedophiles *can't* fix what they've done, to any extent.

Punishment.  It just doesn't work at the moment, nor does rehab.  The only way to fix this is to improve them, but rehab doesn't work unless the person wants to change, and even then there's no actual proof (s)he's different.

You say that you need better policing.  The police can only catch you after you have done something.  If convicted, you enter a inadequate prison system.  This is not enough of a deterrent to stop people commit the crimes.

You seem to dislike punishment as a whole.  What would you suggest, instead of punishing someone, in order to prevent people committing crimes?

[remixor]

I'm not going to respond to everything, just make a quick observation from my point of view.

To me, a removal of society, humane as it may be, is still a form of punishment.  It's basically what prison is, I assume you just intend a more sophisticated and as you said humane approach, which is not a bad idea.  I still see that as punishment, though.  If the person has somethine done to them that they don't want done to them, and that thing is in response to a law they broke, to me, they are being punished.

[Soft, Gooey, Delicious.]

Surveilance Bracelets.  These tell you where a person is.  They can still commit a crime, you just have the proof of where they were after the fact.

So make upgraded ones that have audio and video signals that are activated whenever the wearer is near someone else. Or, just keep tabs on someone with a video servailence system. There's plenty of options.

Humane removal from society where the person can be taught why what they did was wrong...  Could you explain this in more detail, please.

Like goal now, except without drugs, rape and actually making sure the goal has a rehabilitation program.

The upmost thing...  I was not trying to twist your words, and I apologise if it seemed that way.  It's just that rapists, killers and paedophiles *can't* fix what they've done, to any extent.

That's rubbish. You can always do something to make up for wrongs, even if it's only preventing others from making the same mistakes.

Punishment.  It just doesn't work at the moment, nor does rehab.  The only way to fix this is to improve them, but rehab doesn't work unless the person wants to change, and even then there's no actual proof (s)he's different.

Ok, so neither work, but you have some special insight which says that punishment would work. The world's prisons are the most fucked up places on the planet. You think that by being just a little worse they will suddenly become more effective? Rehab doesn't work at the moment because no one makes a serious attempt at it.

You say that you need better policing.  The police can only catch you after you have done something.  If convicted, you enter a inadequate prison system.  This is not enough of a deterrent to stop people commit the crimes.

Just the presence of the police prevents most crime from happening. Ok, so you pay for more cops and give them better tools to prevent crime. Our goals are terrible and if getting anally raped for the rest of your natural life isn't a deterent, then what do you propose will be?

You seem to dislike punishment as a whole.  What would you suggest, instead of punishing someone, in order to prevent people committing crimes?

Have you even read the rest of this thread? I think I answered your question before you asked it.

[Soft, Gooey, Delicious.]

To me, a removal of society, humane as it may be, is still a form of punishment.

The whole notion of punishment is centred around the idea of deliberately hurting[/] someone because of something that they have done. If the removal from society is designed only to prevent them repeating their behaviour and nothing more, then it isn't punishment. Sure, it might not be too pleasant, but it's not designed to be unpleasant. The difference is on the emphasis.

[Renal Shutdown]

Upgraded surveilance gear.  Sure, the idea's sound, but the practicality of it is ridiculous.  It would cost far too much.

Back to the rehab thing again, huh?  One of my main points is that Rehabilitation doesn't work, unless they want to change.  Most criminals don't want to change, most don't feel remorse, most don't even think what they have done is wrong.  Also, how do you know when and if someone is rehabilitated?

How can you say that "you can always make up for wrongs, even if it's only preventing others from making the same mistakes"?.  What possible way is there for a killer to make it up,  and wouldn't it involve being released back into society?

I'm not saying that by making prisons "just a little worse" will make them more effective.  I agree the prison system is far too inadequate.  What I'm saying is make them a *lot* worse.  Enough to survive, infact (see previous post).  I suggest a prison system where criminals are genuinely scared of the consequences.

As to your last point.  Yes, I've read the whole thread.  I checked again, and all I can see from your previous posts is:

1. You think punishment is crap and self-righteous.
2. Rehabilitation, whether it works or not, is the answer.

How do you suggest rehab prevents someone from committing a crime, someone who hasn't committed one before?  If you seriously believe rehab can cut crime, then you are a very naive person.

Like CJ said, it's the "threat" of punishment.  With much harsher prisons, more people will not want to commit a crime due to the fear of the consequences.

[Soft, Gooey, Delicious.]

Upgraded surveilance gear.  Sure, the idea's sound, but the practicality of it is ridiculous.  It would cost far too much.

And the current prison systems are so damn cheap...
And you'd be happy telling the child of murder victim that they'll never see they're parents because it would have cost a bit more at tax time?

Back to the rehab thing again, huh?  One of my main points is that Rehabilitation doesn't work, unless they want to change.  Most criminals don't want to change, most don't feel remorse, most don't even think what they have done is wrong.  

So back it up. You can't just claim it doesn't work. Find some stats or something.

How can you say that "you can always make up for wrongs, even if it's only preventing others from making the same mistakes"?.  What possible way is there for a killer to make it up,  and wouldn't it involve being released back into society?

Yes, it would involve being released. And who are you to say that once someone has broken a rule, they are completely untrustworthy and worthless as a human being.

I'm not saying that by making prisons "just a little worse" will make them more effective.  I agree the prison system is far too inadequate.  What I'm saying is make them a *lot* worse.  Enough to survive, infact (see previous post).  I suggest a prison system where criminals are genuinely scared of the consequences.

You're a sadistic bastard. I find it hard to believe you would condone treating anyone like that. Do you really think that the current prison system isn't scary enough as it is. Look at the US. Murderers haven't stopped killing people even though they know that they might be murdered themselves by the government for committing a crime.

As to your last point.  Yes, I've read the whole thread.  I checked again, and all I can see from your previous posts is:

1. You think punishment is crap and self-righteous.
2. Rehabilitation, whether it works or not, is the answer.

You seem to think I'm not in favour of imprisonment. I am. It does work. I'm not in favour of treating people as animals. I haven't claimed rehabilitation is the only answer at all. I also never claimed punishment was self-righteous. I just claimed it was for children.

Like CJ said, it's the "threat" of punishment.  With much harsher prisons, more people will not want to commit a crime due to the fear of the consequences.

The deterent effect of imprisonment is real and does work. It doesn't imply that goal needs to be inhumane though. But do you really think anyone who actually does murder someone has thought all the consequences out. If harsher prisons worked then places like iraq(where you claim the prison are the kind you want to see), wouldn't have had any crime. Yet, there was crime in iraq. I think it's widely acknowledged in jurisprudential circles that deterence only works so far. Look at people who are put into solitary confinement, which is much like the prisons you describe. If harsher penalties worked, then no-one would ever be put into solitary confinement. That fact that people are put into solitary though, shows that it is ineffective in stopping problem behaviour. Like just about everything else, the deterent effect of imprisonment is subject to the law of diminishing returns. You propose prisons that are not likely to be any more effective than current ones. Not only that, your proposed harsher prisons are inhumane.

[SilverHawke]

I find no moral basis for punishment. Say someone violates an essentially arbitrary rule or law (for the rules are arbitrary). There is no reason why that person deserves punishment. People who insist there is reason, are irrational. Note, this does not mean people should not not be detained and rehabilitated, only that punishment is crap.

And I simply find that naive. Fear of punishment is quite a powerful deterrent. I do, however, agree that it is not really a solution, just a stalemate. In addition, some are beyond rehabilitation or simply not interested in rehabilitation. The best crime deterrent happens before something goes wrong, not after.

[Renal Shutdown]

And the current prison systems are so damn cheap...

My proposed system is very cost effective.

And you'd be happy telling the child of murder victim that they'll never see they're parents because it would have cost a bit more at tax time?

Would you be happy telling them;
"Sorry, rehab don't work for everyone.  Pisser, huh?".

"One research project looked at 61 previous studies of sexual recidivism using a 4-5 year follow up period. This research on sex offenders found that 13.4% recidivated with a sexual offence, 12.2% recidivated with a non-sexual, violent offence and 36.6% recidivated with any other offence".
Hanson, R.K. (1997). "Predictors of sex offence recidivism." Research Summary. Ottawa: Solicitor General Canada.

"A long term follow-up study of child molesters in Canada found that 42% were reconvicted of sexual or violent crime during the 15-30 year follow-up period.

In addition, the long-term follow-up study (15-30 years) of child molesters showed that the average recidivism rate for this group of offenders is actually lower than the average recidivism rate for non-sexual offenders (61% versus 83.2% respectively for any new conviction)".
Hanson, R.K. (1996). "Child molester recidivism." Research Summary. Ottawa: Solicitor General Canada.

Yes, it would involve being released. And who are you to say that once someone has broken a rule, they are completely untrustworthy and worthless as a human being.

Who are you to say everyone can be rehab'ed.  And again I ask, how do you know and can prove if they are or not?

You're a sadistic bastard. I find it hard to believe you would condone treating anyone like that.

Hmm... murderers, rapists, child molestors?  What do they deserve?  A medal?

I also never claimed punishment was self-righteous. I just claimed it was for children.

The thing is, to punish someone implies moral righteousness, which is a load of crap.

Self-righteous, morally righteous, hmpf, I'll give you that one.

Look at people who are put into solitary confinement, which is much like the prisons you describe. If harsher penalties worked, then no-one would ever be put into solitary confinement. That fact that people are put into solitary though, shows that it is ineffective in stopping problem behaviour.

What harsher penalties?  The prisoners go into solitary after they've committed a crime inside.

You propose prisons that are not likely to be any more effective than current ones. Not only that, your proposed harsher prisons are inhumane.

1. My prisons would be less expensive, and more of a threat again (re)offending.
2. What's humane about rape and kiddie fiddling?

[SilverHawke]

Back to the rehab thing again, huh?  One of my main points is that Rehabilitation doesn't work, unless they want to change.  Most criminals don't want to change, most don't feel remorse, most don't even think what they have done is wrong.  
Rabbit with Fangs Responded:
So back it up. You can't just claim it doesn't work. Find some stats or something.

Actually.. I looked for the statistics on this once before... there are none. There are numerous reasons WHY crimes are committed. Some feel guilty, and some just feel bad they got caught... but there are no clear statistics on this matter and so as always.. it will remain a matter of opinion. However.. it's always been clear that one cannot help a person who doesn't wish to help themselves. Forcing someone into rehab who doesn't want it is a waste of your time, their time, and our money.

[Pumaman]

Regarding speed limits, you plow into someone else going at 90mph instead of the 25 you were supposed to be at, then you do hurt them far more than you would at the 25. The speed limits are not arbitrary, they are calculated as described here: http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/425/425lect04.htm

Oh I agree, there are specific places where lower limits are in force for good reason. Within residential areas and around schools and so forth, they are there for a reason - but they are still arbitrary. Who decides whether the limit outside a school should be 25 mph or 30 mph?

This is pretty much what Timosity was saying - how far do you go? Because lowering the limit will always decrease accidents, so why don't all roads just have a 10 mph speed limit?

I would argue that having 3000 people killed on the roads each year is the price that society is prepared to pay for the convenience of having their cars.

Also, everyone driving at the same speed kind of helps the flow. Having lived in a place where people do not do this, let me tell you its hell having people all going at various speeds as they please.

Exactly the same speed is very bad, I find. If you get three lanes of traffic all moving at the same speed, it becomes very difficult to change lanes (for example, when you want to leave the highway), because all traffic is bunched up together.

Whereas when you have the lanes getting progressively faster, from left to right (or vice versa), it becomes much easier to get a gap in the traffic to move into, and to overtake people - the whole system flows much better.

Whether you 'conform' to something or not, you have no right to go around hurting anyone, physically, financially or otherwise.

Indeed. Ideally, as plasticman says, we shouldn't need punishment, or indeed laws at all, because everybody would simply play nice by sticking to their own morals.

But the fact of the matter is, everybody's definition of right and wrong is different - and we need laws and punishment to ensure that everybody can "live their lives in peace without the threat of violence", I think is the official quote.

It's quite interesting to note what happened in Baghdad - as soon as there were no police, people revert to their natural state, which is to fend for themselves and grab as much as possible.

[Robert Eric]

Let's take public nudity for an example (guess why I picked this).  You would think that it wouldn't be that big of a deal, since, basically, being nude is just the absense of clothes.  How can it be wrong?  When we are very hot, do we want to be wearing clothing and having our underware sticking to our asses as we walk down the street or sit in our houses?  

But, many people do not like seeing people naked.  Especially when they are mutated, ugly, fat, etc.  It is horribly exciting to see a beautiful naked woman walking down the street (for both sexes, sometimes), and makes us men want to ravage them on the spot.  But that would lead to possible public embarrassment for having a boner in the street, and being charged with sexual harassment and rape for the latter act.  We wouldn't want to see another guy walking down the street naked, with his weiner flopping about.  This are good reasons for the law, but shouldn't it be our natural right to be nude whenever and wherever?  Opinions and arguements people.

(I know I went a bit off topic, but it's good to stray from the constructed path of the discussion sometimes.)

[Soft, Gooey, Delicious.]

Would you be happy telling them;
"Sorry, rehab don't work for everyone.  Pisser, huh?".

"One research project looked at 61 previous studies of sexual recidivism using a 4-5 year follow up period. This research on sex offenders found that 13.4% recidivated with a sexual offence, 12.2% recidivated with a non-sexual, violent offence and 36.6% recidivated with any other offence".
Hanson, are.K. (1997). "Predictors of sex offence recidivism." Research Summary. Ottawa: Solicitor General Canada.

"A long term follow-up study of child molesters in Canada found that 42% were reconvicted of sexual or violent crime during the 15-30 year follow-up period.

In addition, the long-term follow-up study (15-30 years) of child molesters showed that the average recidivism rate for this group of offenders is actually lower than the average recidivism rate for non-sexual offenders (61% versus 83.2% respectively for any new conviction)".
Hanson, are.K. (1996). "Child molester recidivism." Research Summary. Ottawa: Solicitor General Canada.

I didn't claim that rehab works for everyone. I haven't claimed it will work for everyone. All these studies show is that the current regimes of rehabilitation are not completely effective. In fact, they show that some of the people were rehabilitated.

Yes, it would involve being released. And who are you to say that once someone has broken a rule, they are completely untrustworthy and worthless as a human being.

Who are you to say everyone can be rehab'ed.  And again I ask, how do you know and can prove if they are or not?

I'm not saying everyone can be rehabilitated, I'm saying everyone deserves a shot at being rehabilitated. If it's only half effective, then that's still better than the people in that half rotting in gaol. You don't know you have completely rehabilitated people until they are released back into society. But then you don't know if the people in your harsher gaols are going to re-offend or not either.

What harsher penalties?  The prisoners go into solitary after they've committed a crime inside.

Yeah, but the threat of being in solitary still didn't stop them committing that crime.

2. What's humane about rape and kiddie fiddling?

Nothing. If you are inhumane to criminals though, then you aren't much better than they are.